How many (estimated percentage) of the dead Insurgents, are Iraqi's? Please don't misinterpret, I know over 35K Iraqi civillians have been killed(too many by US soldiers) and those losses are terrible for their communities. But the question is how many of those killed by Coalition Forces, in active combat, were citizens of Iraq? Wouldn't the numbers need to lean towards 2/3 Iraqi or more, if this were truly an Iraqi CIVIL WAR? Does anyone have Data? Or are we all using Global conjecture?

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side. Some civil wars are categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criterion for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). Source: Wikipedia.

Agreed, though the question still remains. The second group of criterion have unquestionably been met, however it still begs the question. Is this truly an Iraq 'civil war' ,versus an Islamic 'cultural revolution'? If warring party lines are indeed drawn across societal and nationalistic sentiments, then this is truly and Iraq civil war. I have been unable to locate any data indicating whether those killed in combat are mostly Iraqi or not. Thanks for clarification outlooker

Yes it does remain and it's a hard question to answer really. I like your phrase "Islamic Cultural Revolution" and thinks it's very appropriate to describe the events in Iraq. The fighting in Iraq is no longer about Iraq alone.

If anyone could find this data, its Outlooker. So it must be classified.

All information in the military is "Classified". The Classifications are: Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, Restricted and Unclassified. Top Secret (TS) The highest level of classification of material. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if publicly available. Top Secret information can be further classified as Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). This applies to certain intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes that require additional access control measures. SCI information is labeled by letter codes that indicate which program the information is a part of. Secret Such material would cause "serious damage" to national security if publicly available. Confidential Such material would cause "damage" or be "prejudicial" to national security if publicly available. Restricted Such material would cause "undesirable" effects if publicly available. Some countries do not have such a classification. Unclassified Technically not a classification level, but is used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above. Such documents can be viewed by those without security clearance. Most, but not all, US Military Members have a Secret Clearance, Many have Top Secret, some do not have as high as secret but these are usually foreign born members of the service or newbies. In addition there is a thing called "The Need to Know", which applies to all levels of Security. Just because I may have a TS Clearance does not mean I automatically have the right to know everything that is classified as TS or lower. By the same token a person with a Secret Clearance may know some TS data because of the job they are doing at the time or their job in general. When I grew up every child had to do research from an early age. About the 3rd or 4th grade teachers would give projects that research was a part of.. English and Science Fairs were the two biggies. High School was a bear for research, as were institutes of higher learning. Over the years I've researched things for the military, for my jobs, and for myself. I've been involved in Genealogy, Military History research, Engineering Research and more. Sorry to disillusion you but I am not much different than a lot of people out there where research is a necessary and fun part of life.

Don't get hung up on a term, doesn't really matter what you call it. The fact is most of the daily deaths in Iraq are Iraqis, the result of attacks by Sunni bombers or Shiite militias. You read the reports every day. How often do you read about US troops facing Al Qaida? How many Al Qaida deaths? Almost none. But whether this is a civil war, or a proxy war financed by outsiders in Iran and Saudi, it is less a US war on terror than it ever was. Not to say we shouldn't try to straighten out the mess Bush created by toppling their government, but the 911 victims are not avenged by a "victory" in Iraq. "Cordesman said that the insurgency was almost totally home-grown, despite the perception in the United States that foreign fighters like Zarqawi from Iran, Syria, and other neighboring countries make up the bulk of the fighters. The insurgency has been essentially Iraqi from the start. There has never been a time where the casualty data indicated that foreigners made up any more than 5 percent of the total," he said. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/06/11/moderates_may_lead_insurgency_analysts_say/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16102396/

Thanks for the links, thought I heard similar numbers earlier on in the conflict, but was curious about more recent stats. With the way our 'modern' media sensationalize information, you can't just follow along with the terminology they tend to choose. Truth be told, our national reporting agencies are/and will continue to be more accountable to their ratings, than they are to delivering unbiased, factual informations to the citizens of this country. Thus we are forced to use each other as resouces, rather than rely on the sensationalized 'slant', and 'newly released dramatic footage'. Unfortunately, the terms used to convey information to the American public, often start people thinking in these terms also. If the terms used are inaccurate then the line of thought is inaccurate, and it's time to start pulling up foundations and rebuild. Here's to the Iraqi Civil War, pray for peace. Thanks again to everyone responding, and be sure to support all your fellow AMERICANS. Without them, there is no WE THE PEOPLE.

Those in the media love to show how important they are by passing on information which not everyone is supposed to know. It doesn't matter if their information is accurate or complete. I say this time and again, if people think back with an open mind then they can see where the media passes information on that is inaccurate often. Over the years I've heard engineers, doctors, nurses, draftsmen, cops, firemen, military and even politicians say that a report heard on the news was incorrect. In fact I've heard people from all walks of life comment how the media has to rush to get the news out first then change the story fairly quickly because first assumptions were wrong. This is in addition to what I've seen and heard myself. The media isn't a very good source of information which is accurarte or complete, but it's the only source most people out there have.

That is true, MB, most of the deaths in Iraq are Iraqi killing Iraqi, or more precisely Muslim killing Muslim. It's hard to pinpoint how many AQ deaths there are, these people don't wear uniforms nor do they have Al Queda engraved into their foreheads. Some of the people killed by US troops could have been AQ, just like some of the so-called innocents who died could have been Supporters of the Insurgency or a part of it themselves. There are no clear ways of identifying who all the dead are aligned with. Actually I don't think it is being pressed that outside fighters make up the bulk, I do know that Zarqawi and others said there are over 12,000 AQ members in Iraq. The Insurgency supposedly tallied over 20,000 or more. Once again there is no clear line to identify who is who and does it really matter in the long run? If someone is shooting at you, do you really care if they are Iraqi Insurgents or Iranian Terrorists?

If someone is shooting at you, do you really care if they are Iraqi Insurgents or Iranian Terrorists? I care. How can you counter unless you know who to counter?

or how can you SUCCESSFULLY counter?

Doesnt matter what you call it. No mater who is shooting at you, you kill them. That is war. Declare martial law, close all military roads, set 6 PM or as needed curfews, and kill all violators. That's how to win a war. Our troops will be increased by 21,000 in a few months and to 500,000 over the next 5 years. We are in Iraq to stay, and use it as a base in the region, working with israel to quell all terrorists and rebels by whatever namea. Then bring in our businesses and industries, and Iraqis will prosper. That is reconstruction. Either fight this war and win or surrender, which is totally unacceptable and not an option.

You don't need to know who is shooting at you, you only need to know where the shots are coming from. Let me guess, you've never fired a weapon, have you? LOL

Let me guess, you've never fired a weapon, have you? LOL LOL. Wrong again, but whats one more bad guess? I think this thread concerns the US's position of al quida fighting our troops in iraq. More Bush BS? Caught and killed Saddam and his boys but can't put an al quida ID on any of the 34000 killed last year?